Rajes Kumar - (1.) -Heard Sri Anil Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel appears on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Sri Sarvesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent No. 2.
(2.) BY means of the present writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 16.9.2008, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bijnor, by which the restoration application filed by the respondent has been allowed. It appears that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bijnor vide order dated 29.5.2008 has decided two revisions 572 and 1181. In revision No. 1181, respondents, Tausif Ahmad and Wasim Ahmad were made party. Notices were issued. Notice sent to Tausif Ahmad has returned back with the report that he had gone out of station while in the case of Wasim Ahmad, it was received by him. Sri Vijay Singh, advocate filed vakalatnama on behalf of Tausif Ahmad. No vakalatnama has been filed by Wasim Ahmad on whom notice has been served personally. So far as revision No. 572 is concerned, respondents, Tausif Ahmad and Wasim Ahmad were not made party initially. However, impleadment application dated 16.1.2008 has been allowed and they have been made as party but admittedly, no notice has been issued to them. There is nothing in the order dated 29.5.2008 to show that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were present and were heard on the date of hearing. It appears that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed Writ Petition No. 30200 of 2008 before this Court challenging the order dated 29.5.2008. The aforesaid writ petition has been subsequently dismissed as not pressed. The restoration application has been allowed by the impugned order on the ground that the notice has not been issued to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in revision No. 572. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly, in revision No. 1181 notices were issued to the respondents and was served on Wasim Ahmad. Sri Vijay Singh, advocate filed vakalatnama on behalf of Tausif Ahmad and, therefore, even if the notices have not been issued in revision No. 572 it cannot be said that the proper opportunity of hearing has not been provided. He submitted that notices were issued to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in revision No. 1181. Sri Vijay Singh, advocate filed vakalatnama on behalf of Tausif Ahmad. Notice was personally served on Wasim Ahmad and, therefore, the proper opportunity of hearing was provided to both the parties. He further submitted that since both the revisions 572 and 1181 have been heard together and proper opportunity of hearing was provided in one of the revisions, thus, it amounts to opportunity of hearing in another case also. Therefore, the impugned order allowing the restoration application is wholly unjustified.
(3.) IN support of the contentions, he relied upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar and another, (2005) 1 SCC 787 : 2005 (1) AWC 609 (SC) and decision of this Court in the case of Ram Das and another v. D.D.C. and others, 1979 RD 308. Once the writ petition has been dismissed, the restoration application was not maintainable. I do not see any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner.;